Sturgeon says Scottish parliament will not consent to UK PM May's Brexit bill

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You should look up Andrew Neil grilling Sturgeon on Scottish budget deficits on YouTube. And enjoy her attempts to completely not answer and avoid.

Well the very simple question of why Scotland would be unique around the world in being incapable self sufficiency is still unanswered - maybe you can explain to me what is lacking in our character that means we will be unable to fund ourselves independently?

 

11 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

The facts are without support from the whole of the UK, Scotland would have gone down the pan years before any oil. Oil that was explored and delivered with UK money. 

If there are facts, please provide them.

 

As for oil exploration - other than the pre-privatised BP and BG, what UK money was spent developing the North Sea? The sale of BP and BG has returned any expenses to Westminster so that they could give tax breaks to their friends - not the fault of the Scottish people.

 

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

And who bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland? Perhaps the uber rich Scottish treasury can immediately reimburse and compensate the British tax payer?

The Bank of Scotland is Scottish in name only - at least the investment banking arm is heavily based in London and succumbed to the same neoliberal policies that every other investment bank was following. But who bailed out the other british banks that went the same way? Should such government responses only be kept for entities with England or Britain in their names? I would certainly vote for that, assuming of course, that we get to slip the shackles at the same time.

 

[nontabury]

30 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Completely relevant for these simple reasons:

 

(1) See the notes in the table, especially the bit that says 'excluding North Sea oil and gas';

(2) Even if you were correct in your statement, Brent crude is currently $69 compared to around $40 in 2015, an almost 75% increase.

And the price of North Sea oil in early 2014 was ?

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, nontabury said:

And the price of North Sea oil in early 2014 was ?

 

Well that is irrelevant - as the chart makes clear, WITHOUT oil and gas, Scotland outperforms most of the UK, Yorkshire included.

[Baerboxer]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Well the very simple question of why Scotland would be unique around the world in being incapable self sufficiency is still unanswered - maybe you can explain to me what is lacking in our character that means we will be unable to fund ourselves independently?

 

If there are facts, please provide them.

 

As for oil exploration - other than the pre-privatised BP and BG, what UK money was spent developing the North Sea? The sale of BP and BG has returned any expenses to Westminster so that they could give tax breaks to their friends - not the fault of the Scottish people.

 

The Bank of Scotland is Scottish in name only - at least the investment banking arm is heavily based in London and succumbed to the same neoliberal policies that every other investment bank was following. But who bailed out the other british banks that went the same way? Should such government responses only be kept for entities with England or Britain in their names? I would certainly vote for that, assuming of course, that we get to slip the shackles at the same time.

 

 

The usual obfuscation, denial and deflections.

 

Do your own research. Andrew Neil's video is a good starting point. Look at Scottish budget, deficits, and UK funding for areas, that will give you some facts. I'm certainly not doing research for you, or anyone else. And don't claim dismissing comments by asking for "facts' means the comment isn't true. Unless of course you can give 'facts" that show that.

 

Oil - so you think the exchequer, as in the UK, the actual country exchequer never incurred any expenses in developing North Sea Oil and Gas?

 

The Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland are not one and the same. But they do both issue Sottish bank notes. It seems you conveniently place any mismanagement and bails outs of Scottish institutions as the responsibility of the UK but want to keep any Scottish assets as purely for Scotland.

 

If Scotland ever did leave the UK, and that decision must be the decision of all the UK people, not a small %, then the bill for all the years of British taxpayer's financial support will need to be settled.

 

Scotland on it's own would be out of the UK, out of the EU, and despite all the talk would find a big unfriendly world out there. 

[nontabury]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

Well that is irrelevant - as the chart makes clear, WITHOUT oil and gas, Scotland outperforms most of the UK, Yorkshire included.

You should be a football player, as Scotland could do with someone who can dribble around the facts, as you like to think you can.

  You showed a chart, showing correctly that in that Narrow period of the 300/400 yr Union, that Scotland was indeed a nett contributor. 

 The 2014 referendum took place when the value of North Sea oil was at its highest, $120 and  this was at the cornerstone of the SNP economic predictions.

Unfortunately the value of oil collapsed to $50 in the 3rd quarter, in other words,After the vote.

 

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The usual obfuscation, denial and deflections.

 

Do your own research. Andrew Neil's video is a good starting point. Look at Scottish budget, deficits, and UK funding for areas, that will give you some facts. I'm certainly not doing research for you, or anyone else. And don't claim dismissing comments by asking for "facts' means the comment isn't true. Unless of course you can give 'facts" that show that.

 

Oil - so you think the exchequer, as in the UK, the actual country exchequer never incurred any expenses in developing North Sea Oil and Gas?

 

The Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland are not one and the same. But they do both issue Sottish bank notes. It seems you conveniently place any mismanagement and bails outs of Scottish institutions as the responsibility of the UK but want to keep any Scottish assets as purely for Scotland.

 

If Scotland ever did leave the UK, and that decision must be the decision of all the UK people, not a small %, then the bill for all the years of British taxpayer's financial support will need to be settled.

 

Scotland on it's own would be out of the UK, out of the EU, and despite all the talk would find a big unfriendly world out there. 

No, inserting the word FACT into your post does not magically transform it from pejudiced, uninformed drivel to something meaningful.

Tell me about this Scottish deficit, and how an administration that has no facility to borrow money can generate a deficit. I think you need to do the research for yourself, not for me.

 

Again, do I think the exchequer incurred no costs in developing the North Sea? I think that means you have no idea but you are throwing that out there in the vain hope that it sticks.

 

The Dept of Energy is funded by Westminster, that receives royalties and taxes for production from the companies who produce the oil - those royalties and taxes, partially, pay for the running of the Dept of Energy. Not complicated, is it? But if you think that Westminster paid for the platforms, wells, pipelines etc then you really are clueless about the oil industry.

 

As for the rest - so many bitter anti-Scottish people in the UK, but nothing new there.

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, nontabury said:

You should be a football player, as Scotland could do with someone who can dribble around the facts, as you like to think you can.

  You showed a chart, showing correctly that in that Narrow period of the 300/400 yr Union, that Scotland was indeed a nett contributor. 

 The 2014 referendum took place when the value of North Sea oil was at its highest, $120 and  this was at the cornerstone of the SNP economic predictions.

Unfortunately the value of oil collapsed to $50 in the 3rd quarter, in other words,After the vote.

 

 

 

 

Are you having comprehension issues today? The chart expicitly stated that the numbers did not include oil and gas - therefore oil and gas has no relevance to the chart. Regardless of hydrocarbons, we support the less efficient people of Yorkshire.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

No, inserting the word FACT into your post does not magically transform it from pejudiced, uninformed drivel to something meaningful.

Tell me about this Scottish deficit, and how an administration that has no facility to borrow money can generate a deficit. I think you need to do the research for yourself, not for me.

 

Again, do I think the exchequer incurred no costs in developing the North Sea? I think that means you have no idea but you are throwing that out there in the vain hope that it sticks.

 

The Dept of Energy is funded by Westminster, that receives royalties and taxes for production from the companies who produce the oil - those royalties and taxes, partially, pay for the running of the Dept of Energy. Not complicated, is it? But if you think that Westminster paid for the platforms, wells, pipelines etc then you really are clueless about the oil industry.

 

As for the rest - so many bitter anti-Scottish people in the UK, but nothing new there.

I most certainly am not anti-Scottish, in fact I think you are anti-English...

[Baerboxer]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

No, inserting the word FACT into your post does not magically transform it from pejudiced, uninformed drivel to something meaningful.

Tell me about this Scottish deficit, and how an administration that has no facility to borrow money can generate a deficit. I think you need to do the research for yourself, not for me.

 

Again, do I think the exchequer incurred no costs in developing the North Sea? I think that means you have no idea but you are throwing that out there in the vain hope that it sticks.

 

The Dept of Energy is funded by Westminster, that receives royalties and taxes for production from the companies who produce the oil - those royalties and taxes, partially, pay for the running of the Dept of Energy. Not complicated, is it? But if you think that Westminster paid for the platforms, wells, pipelines etc then you really are clueless about the oil industry.

 

As for the rest - so many bitter anti-Scottish people in the UK, but nothing new there.

 

Prejudice - what like your clearly biased nationalist agenda? 

 

Obviously you don't want to look at the Andrew Neil Nicola Sturgeon interview where he tears her apart on the subject. But of course, the reality isn't always nice as pretense. Then you could hear all about the Westminster generous funding. Just like when the economic genius Salmond predicted oil would never fall below $100 a barrel - yeah, power house Scotland.

 

No, I know the oil industry very well. But at least your're now admitting that it isn't a Scottish cottage industry. 

 

I'm not bitter of anti-Scottish. That claim is a usual trick of the nationalists, many of whom are prejudiced against all things English and claim that anyone who doesn't bow to their ideas must be anti Scottish or not truly Scottish. Shame so many can't get their brains out of medieval of Georgian time warps!

 

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, transam said:

I most certainly am not anti-Scottish, in fact I think you are anti-English...

You are entited to that opinion but I would be interested in you explaining it further - have I ever written anything that woud suggest I was?

It is quite a serious charge that you are laying against me so I would appreciate you having the common decency to back that up with evidence.

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Prejudice - what like your clearly biased nationalist agenda? 

 

Obviously you don't want to look at the Andrew Neil Nicola Sturgeon interview where he tears her apart on the subject. But of course, the reality isn't always nice as pretense. Then you could hear all about the Westminster generous funding. Just like when the economic genius Salmond predicted oil would never fall below $100 a barrel - yeah, power house Scotland.

 

No, I know the oil industry very well. But at least your're now admitting that it isn't a Scottish cottage industry. 

 

I'm not bitter of anti-Scottish. That claim is a usual trick of the nationalists, many of whom are prejudiced against all things English and claim that anyone who doesn't bow to their ideas must be anti Scottish or not truly Scottish. Shame so many can't get their brains out of medieval of Georgian time warps!

 

 

 

 

 

If you know the oil industry well, why are you claiming that the UK government paid for the development of the North Sea?

Of course it isn't a solely Scottish industry - where did I ever suggest that? Please do not attribute nonsense to me in an attempt to defend your own clearly poorly constructed position.

 

As for bowing to my ideas, I have never expected that and I respect the fact that everyone has a different opinion - you know, like most rational, normal thinking adults have?

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by RuamRudy

[transam]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

You are entited to that opinion but I would be interested in you explaining it further - have I ever written anything that woud suggest I was?

It is quite a serious charge that you are laying against me so I would appreciate you having the common decency to back that up with evidence.

How your posts read..

 

You just posted "so many anti-Scots people in the UK"...How do you know that...?

[RuamRudy]

Just now, transam said:

How your posts read..

 

You just posted "so many anti-Scots people in the UK"...How do you know that...?

Where does that post mention English people specifically? Now you could take that sentence in isolation and accuse me of paranoia, but there is no way that you could draw the conclusion that I am anti-English unless you wanted to manufacture a false grievance.

 

So - anything else to justify your smear, or are you just going to label me as anti-English because you do not share my view on Scotand's future?

[transam]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Where does that post mention English people specifically? Now you could take that sentence in isolation and accuse me of paranoia, but there is no way that you could draw the conclusion that I am anti-English unless you wanted to manufacture a false grievance.

 

So - anything else to justify your smear, or are you just going to label me as anti-English because you do not share my view on Scotand's future?

So now your "UK" is nothing to do with the English, oh, you were referring to the English and Welsh...

 

Suggest you just carry on with your "campaign"...

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, transam said:

So now your "UK" is nothing to do with the English, oh, you were referring to the English and Welsh...

 

Suggest you just carry on with your "campaign"...

You forgot the Northern Irish.

 

Can we assume that you have failed to find any evidence to back up your assessment of my opinions?

 

3 hours ago, transam said:

in fact I think you are anti-English...

Are you now admitting that there is no justification for that attack on my character?

[malagateddy]

I am a Glaswegian and I think that you are very anti-British...
Thankfully I am a Unionist and a Royalist.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sirineou]

On 2/28/2018 at 11:23 PM, RuamRudy said:

Never fear - it is always interesting to get an outsider's perspective.

 

To be honest, I see no possibility of a federal UK. One of the current problems in the UK is that there is no devolved parliament for England. The liklihood of one being created is, in my opinion, very slim - as once that happens, more power would be transferred from Westminster, leading to questions as to its purpose.

 

Add to the mix the different legal systems (not different laws, but funadamentally different systems) and EVEL, a rule introduced to Westminster that prevents Scottish MPs voting on matters that are purely English in nature, and you can see that the UK system of government is destined to create grievances. This last one is especially contentious because, due to the way that the UK government calculates disbursement to the devolved parliaments, there are relatively few laws that actually affect only England, even if it would appear at first glance that they do.

 

One of the oft-repeated fallacies in the argument  is that the desire for Scottish independence is based upon some form of anti-English sentiment. This is a much repeated trope intended to discredit the independence movement even though their is very little substance to back it up. The simple fact is that many in Scotland see that a parliament where 90% of the representatives are from what they consider another country, they do not believe that the interests of the Scots are being met by Westminster, and that for the greater good of all parties in the union, there should be an amicable separation.

" The simple fact is that many in Scotland see that a parliament where 90% of the representatives are from what they consider another country, they do not believe that the interests of the Scots are being met by Westminster, "

replace Scots with UK and Westminster with Brussels and the above could easily apply to the brexit sentiment. So independence from the EU is good but independance from the UK is not?

As an American I have being reading the replies from both sides simply to get a handle on your situation, and as someone looking in from the outside, and being able to see the whole forest rather than just trees, I think if Brexit   proceeds it will not end good for the UK 

I think it was Alexander the Great who said "Divide and conquer "  

and 

Abraham Lincoln who said "  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  "

Regardless   of which side in this brexit debacle wins, there will be a significant percentage of the population disenfranchised.

You all need to re-vote this thing and get significant consensus, Otherwise as I said, this will not end good for the UK.

 

 

[GinBoy2]

On 3/1/2018 at 12:09 PM, RuamRudy said:

Is there not the additional challenge of maintaining a consistency across 50-something states that is much less complex with 4? I really don't know much about how the US government is run, but the reserved matters (i.e. those areas retained by Westminster) could all be effectively managed in Scotland for the Scots.

 

We have moved to a new political era. A question often asked by independence supporters, but never satisfactorily answered, is what are the benefits of remaining in the Union. It seems that history and loyalty to a notion of what the UK once was is what drives many unionists. Independence will not negate the rightly proud history of the UK, but its purpose in the 21st century is no longer clear.

Thats a good point, but conversely wouldn’t it make the keeping consistency across 4 states easier?

The question of ‘whats the point’ of the UK, that’s a harder one to answer. 

The US is defined (forget the current Trump hiccup) that we are all a nation of immigrants, bound together, as diverse as we all are, by a sense of being American, and something that the UK used to have, a sense of loyalty to the flag.

 

I think, and feel to correct me if you disagree, that the ‘British’ used to be bound together by the shared  concept of imperialism, rather than a shared sense of national identity, which defines most Americans.

 

That might I fear be harder to construct in the 21st century

[transam]

11 hours ago, malagateddy said:

I am a Glaswegian and I think that you are very anti-British...
Thankfully I am a Unionist and a Royalist.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Thank you,  I was sure that after reading pages of "stuff" I was not the only one of that opinion.

It seems that I should have stated Welsh and N.Ireland as well as English, so lets consider that amended here...

[RuamRudy]

14 hours ago, malagateddy said:

I am a Glaswegian and I think that you are very anti-British...
Thankfully I am a Unionist and a Royalist.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Now that doesn't make any sense whatsover. Britain is not a political entity but a geographic feature. In general, I have no gripes against geography. However I do hope to see Scotland extract itself from the political union of the UK, a very different position to that which you describe.

 

As for royalty, that is irrelevant. There is no particularly strong republican movement in Scotland and, while I object to public funds being used to pay for a cushy life for some dowager aunt 15 times removed, I see no better alternative to a system of monarchy, although some of the Scandinavian models seem more appealing - where they actually work for a living rather than exist off the backs of strugging taxpayers.

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, transam said:

Thank you,  I was sure that after reading pages of "stuff" I was not the only one of that opinion.

It seems that I should have stated Welsh and N.Ireland as well as English, so lets consider that amended here...

Then, if there are pages of "stuff" that, in your eyes, incriminate me, it is surely easy for you to present some evidence?

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

" The simple fact is that many in Scotland see that a parliament where 90% of the representatives are from what they consider another country, they do not believe that the interests of the Scots are being met by Westminster, "

replace Scots with UK and Westminster with Brussels and the above could easily apply to the brexit sentiment. So independence from the EU is good but independance from the UK is not?

As an American I have being reading the replies from both sides simply to get a handle on your situation, and as someone looking in from the outside, and being able to see the whole forest rather than just trees, I think if Brexit   proceeds it will not end good for the UK 

I think it was Alexander the Great who said "Divide and conquer "  

and 

Abraham Lincoln who said "  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  "

Regardless   of which side in this brexit debacle wins, there will be a significant percentage of the population disenfranchised.

You all need to re-vote this thing and get significant consensus, Otherwise as I said, this will not end good for the UK.

 

 

At first glances I think that you are right - the concepts seem very similar. However at a working level, that is not the case.

 

Imagine, for instance, France dictating the foreign policy of Belgium with the Belgians having little to no say in the matter; Germany determining the defence policy of Austria with the Austrians being similarly impotent in their own affairs. That is the situation we have in the UK.

 

Within the EU, Belgium has a powerful voice alongside France; it is not subsumed by the latter making decisions on its behalf.

 

That said, it would be naive to assume that all of those who seek Scottish independence also seek to rejoin the EU; I believe that around 30% of independence supporters also backed Brexit so the picture is far from straightforward.

 

But you are correct about the divisions - the UK as a whole is split 50/50 regarding Brexit; Scotland is much the same regarding independence. It does not bode well.

 

 

[overherebc]

We are all British.

Get used to it.

It won't go away.

And, Dear Nickie, go away.

[sirineou]

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

At first glances I think that you are right - the concepts seem very similar. However at a working level, that is not the case.

 

Imagine, for instance, France dictating the foreign policy of Belgium with the Belgians having little to no say in the matter; Germany determining the defence policy of Austria with the Austrians being similarly impotent in their own affairs. That is the situation we have in the UK.

 

Within the EU, Belgium has a powerful voice alongside France; it is not subsumed by the latter making decisions on its behalf.

 

That said, it would be naive to assume that all of those who seek Scottish independence also seek to rejoin the EU; I believe that around 30% of independence supporters also backed Brexit so the picture is far from straightforward.

 

But you are correct about the divisions - the UK as a whole is split 50/50 regarding Brexit; Scotland is much the same regarding independence. It does not bode well.

 

 

 Thank you for that very informative reply.

A couple observations  that might or might not be correct. 

If what you say about the level of independence between members of EU and members of the UK   is true, and I belive it is, then there is a better case to be made for UKexit than it is for Brexit among those who desire more independence.

    And this really more of a question than a observation but. since the last Scottish independence referendum lost by only  about 10% points and a small 6% swing  would put the leave function in the majority , and since brexit lost by 24 percentage points in Scotland  , would a Brexit have a better chance to straighten  the Scottish independence  movement or weakening it? and if it straightened would it be a stretch to think it would be by 6%?

    If Brexit can occur by a small   majority, then why not a Scottish UKexit ?

And finally if a Scottish separation occurs and Scotland remains or re-enters the EU  as  an independent nation,  and does well, would that foster a strong , independence movement in other UK members?

   I know, I know , so many ifs.But with so many ifs, is it prudent for Brexit to proceed with such a narrow consensus.

   

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by sirineou

[GinBoy2]

Another dumb American perspective

In who's corn fed mind came up with the notion that that you can ask extremely complex questions, be it Brexit or UKexit, in a simple one line question and have a answer decided by a simple majority, rather than a 66% super majority.

I'm being a little disingenuous here since I went to see David Cameron speak in Rapid City South Dakota, and asked him the same question during the Q&A session. Curiously for a politician he actually seemed stumped come up with an answer

[StreetCowboy]

27 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 Thank you for that very informative reply.

A couple observations  that might or might not be correct. 

If what you say about the level of independence between members of EU and members of the UK   is true, and I belive it is, then there is a better case to be made for UKexit than it is for Brexit among those who desire more independence.

    And this really more of a question than a observation but. since the last Scottish independence referendum lost by only  about 10% points and a small 6% swing  would put the leave function in the majority , and since brexit lost by 24 percentage points in Scotland  , would a Brexit have a better chance to straighten  the Scottish independence  movement or weakening it? and if it straightened would it be a stretch to think it would be by 6%?

    If Brexit can occur by a small   majority, then why not a Scottish UKexit ?

And finally if a Scottish separation occurs and Scotland remains or re-enters the EU  as  an independent nation,  and does well, would that foster a strong , independence movement in other UK members?

   I know, I know , so many ifs.But with so many ifs, is it prudent for Brexit to proceed with such a narrow consensus.

   

 

 

 

Britain doesn’t need to be prudent.  A slender majority is sufficient, in lieu of gunboats, to ram through any foreign policy, however bizarre or self- damaging, and those who say otherwise are traitors, and probably liberal socialists to boot.

[Sir Dude]

Aweful woman.

[Scott]

3 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Aweful woman.

Is that Awe and is in filled with awe?  Or did you wish to make a comment on the topic?

 

[Khun Han]

21 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

Thats a good point, but conversely wouldn’t it make the keeping consistency across 4 states easier?

The question of ‘whats the point’ of the UK, that’s a harder one to answer. 

The US is defined (forget the current Trump hiccup) that we are all a nation of immigrants, bound together, as diverse as we all are, by a sense of being American, and something that the UK used to have, a sense of loyalty to the flag.

 

I think, and feel to correct me if you disagree, that the ‘British’ used to be bound together by the shared  concept of imperialism, rather than a shared sense of national identity, which defines most Americans.

 

That might I fear be harder to construct in the 21st century

 

Why do you think that the British used to be bound together by the shared concept of imperialism? I'm British and live in the UK, and I've never met anybody who shares that concept.

[GinBoy2]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Why do you think that the British used to be bound together by the shared concept of imperialism? I'm British and live in the UK, and I've never met anybody who shares that concept.

Well history is a guide. Before 1914 there was a movement to enact Home Rule in Scotland, similar to what was being proposed for Ireland to try to blunt the growing movement for Independence, which had been growing since the 1850’s with the formation o the ‘Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights’. In point of fact Asquith believed, and I believe rightly, that Federalism was the only way to hold the UK together, and to quote him it was, “the true basis of Union"

 

In many ways there are serious parallels between the national ethnic tensions in both Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empires, all clamoring for autonomy.

 

The first world war did it’s job is fracturing those empires into their ethnic constituent parts, whereas the in the UK the imperial dream papered over the cracks for the next century.

 

It’s an interesting side note, that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was actually proposing a similar federal model for Austria-Hungary. It’s one of the ‘what if’s’ what would have happened, had he not been assassinated and had ascended the throne.

Edited March 25, 2018 by GinBoy2